Similar problems nationwide: recently, a NY-man removed his anklet in 60 seconds.

A February 2013 investigation by the Los Angeles Timesshowed that “thousands” of high-risk sex offenders and parolees were routinely removing or disabling their GPS tracking devices. And these individuals have little risk of being caught because California's jails are apparently too full to hold them.

On Saturday, the Timesrevealed significant portions of previously-redacted documents from state reports on two rival GPS tracking device manufacturers (3M and Satellite Tracking of People [STOP], based in Houston). Last year, California judges concealed significant sections of these after state officials argued publicizing such information could inform potential violators and "erode public trust" in the system. The newly released information shows just how problematic the tracking anklets made by 3M were.

California began this statewide monitoring program in 2008, splitting the device contracts between 3M and STOP. More than a year ago, California began testing the monitors currently in place on the nearly 8,000 convicted-but-now-released sex offenders, parolees, and felons within the state. As the Timesreported regarding the 3M devices, “Corrections officials found the devices used in half the state were so inaccurate and unreliable that the public was ‘in imminent danger.’” State officials immediately ordered a mass replacement of all 3M ankle monitors in use, opting instead for the STOP products.

"Inundated with defects"

The Times elaborated on the 3M device issues:

One agent who participated in the tests, Denise LeBard, said in a court statement that 3M's ankle monitors were "inundated with defects."

Among the problems: 3M's devices failed to collect a GPS location every minute, phone in that information every 10 minutes and forward a text message to a parole agent if a problem was detected. Without revealing how well STOP performed, the state said 3M collected only 45 percent of the possible GPS points.

Testers also were able to fool 3M's GPS devices by wrapping monitors in foil, something that triggers an alarm on STOP's device because it has a metal detector.

3M subsequently sued, arguing that state officials had rigged the evaluations.

"This is one agency's testing," Steve Chapin, vice president of government relations for 3M's electronic monitoring division, told the Times. "We have the most widely used system in the world. It's been proven time and time and time again to be very safe and reliable."

New York man disabled, removed GPS anklet in 60 seconds

Back in 2006, California voters approved a ballot measure to put GPS tracking “anklets” on sex offenders that would monitor them for life—joining 23 other states across the country. California’s system was activated in 2008. As with any technology, it didn’t go quite as swimmingly as its designers intended.

GPS devices aren’t just problematic in California: a recent journalistic investigation into the use of similar devices in Wisconsin also illustrated massive problems with its program. Last year, a Tennessee audit showed that more than 80 percent of alerts from GPS-monitored offenders “were not cleared or confirmed” by corrections agents.

Earlier this month, a New York man took his GPS tracking device apart, removed it, and reassembled it in 60 seconds. He later allegedly raped a 10-year-old girl and stabbed a woman in a small town in the suburbs of Syracuse, New York.

114 Reader Comments

Back in 2006, California voters approved a ballot measure to put GPS tracking “anklets” on sex offenders that would monitor them for life

For life? Are California voters crazy or does California actually have a sane legal definition of "sex offender". One that does not criminalize socially-accepted behavior or turn first-time offenders into perpetual criminals.

Back in 2006, California voters approved a ballot measure to put GPS tracking “anklets” on sex offenders that would monitor them for life

For life? Are California voters crazy or does California actually have a sane legal definition of "sex offender". One that does not criminalize socially-accepted behavior or turn first-time offenders into perpetual criminals.

The definition everywhere in the States is less than sane in some ways. I know a person who is on a sex-offender registry for life for sleeping with a sixteen year old girl who lied to everyone about her age. This guy's a "sex offender" now and it's impossible for people to differentiate between him and a rapist/pedophile.

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

But anyway, an ankle bracelet isn't a perfect solution and one would wonder why they were paroled if they were still seen as a threat to society.

If someone is considered a high risk sex offender, relying on a cheap questionable alternative to incarceration is blatant stupidity.

It appears cash strapped organisations were all too willing to swallow the sales pitch and went with the lowest bidder.

There's plenty of blame to go around here. A large part of that blame lies with idiots thinking a pervert with a stiff dick will be stopped by an ankle bracelet. The rest lies with manufacturers trying to profiteer on an unsuitable product while perpetuating the myth that it works.

1. Fail to define the crime properly so "shit happens" situations spawn pseudo-sex offenders2. Fail to put pseudo-sex offenders in jail because the f'd up legal system fills jails with marihuana smokers and other nonsense "crimes"3. Instead, fail to track them because big business makes money with selling crappy products4. FAIL

Engelsstaub, the german law about the 14 year olds might be weird, but at least intelligent people are behind it, so shit like this doesn't happen that often.

Last year, California judges concealed significant sections of these after state officials argued publicizing such information could inform potential violators and "erode public trust" in the system.

How does anybody let "eroding public trust" fly as an argument for censoring information on how floored a system meant to protect the public is? Why should the public trust a system that clearly doesn't work? Or maybe this is just a case of "as long as people think we're doing our job, it doesn't matter what really happens", which is the exact opposite of how democracy is supposed to work.

Quote:

3M subsequently sued, arguing that state officials had rigged the evaluations.

So 3M are basically saying "if you buy our system and it doesn't work out for you, well hard luck, you have to keep it or we'll sue you". Yeah, that's gonna get people queuing up to by your system. It just makes it painfully obvious that they have a failed product on there hands and they're doing anything they can to try and wrangle a bit of money out of it.

If someone is considered a high risk sex offender, relying on a cheap questionable alternative to incarceration is blatant stupidity.

But it's the American way.

sonolumi wrote:

It appears cash strapped organisations were all too willing to swallow the sales pitch and went with the lowest bidder.

There's plenty of blame to go around here. A large part of that blame lies with idiots thinking a pervert with a stiff dick will be stopped by an ankle bracelet. The rest lies with manufacturers trying to profiteer on an unsuitable product while perpetuating the myth that it works.

Agree.

I just find it funny that 3M first throws a lawsuit and says that there is no way that their technology hasn't been compromised in the 5 years that it's been in use. Alls they needed to do was coming out publicly criticizing the gov and then commissioning their own study along with a neutral third party to review both findings. Instead 3M has no backbone and relies on the courts to try to prove their product is infallible. Really all the gov needs to do is bring that guy in to court to demonstrate that he can disabled, removed, and then put back together his GPS monitoring ankle bracelet in about 60 seconds. It would be great if it's a 3M bracelet. Nonetheless his demonstration would show that in fact it is possible to get around the system.

3M has that single mind mentality of "it's doesn't happen to us" or "not in my backyard" that so many companies and people have about criminals and predators.

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

I definitely believe the former because it happened to a colleague. He is now unhireable. The latter? Not so much. Cite references, please.

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

I definitely believe the former because it happened to a colleague. He is now unhireable. The latter? Not so much. Cite references, please.

The latter: Italy. Is this the reference you're looking for? I didn't want to sound like an obnoxious nationalistic flamer (like far too many posters here) so forgive me for not immediately and unnecessarily stating what I thought was obvious.

Last year, California judges concealed significant sections of these after state officials argued publicizing such information could inform potential violators and "erode public trust" in the system.

What's the probability that this was an electron year for the officials involved? I agree that you don't want to go advertising "hey this system is incredibly flawed, hey sex offenders have at it!" But on the other hand, the public deserves to know when they are in danger.

I think all the public officials involved in that decision should be recalled ( if possible).

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

I definitely believe the former because it happened to a colleague. He is now unhireable. The latter? Not so much. Cite references, please.

The latter: Italy. Is this the reference you're looking for? I didn't want to sound like an obnoxious nationalistic flamer (like far too many posters here) so forgive me for not immediately and unnecessarily stating what I thought was obvious.

No, no. All good. Just couldn't believe that something like this was happening.

The definition everywhere in the States is less than sane in some ways. I know a person who is on a sex-offender registry for life for sleeping with a sixteen year old girl who lied to everyone about her age. This guy's a "sex offender" now and it's impossible for people to differentiate between him and a rapist/pedophile.

Where? I don't know of any state where the age of consent is above 16?

Quote:

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

It is not legal to have sex with a person who doesn't consent, including someone who is unable to consent due to alcohol. Of course a man who has sex with a woman who is passed out is going to claim that he was also drunk...but that doesn't mean it's true or we have to believe it. Apparently the jury didn't.

Quote:

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

This is legal in some parts of the US, too, if the man is 18 or 19 (i.e., if the age difference is 5 years or less).

Quote:

But anyway, an ankle bracelet isn't a perfect solution and one would wonder why they were paroled if they were still seen as a threat to society.

They may or may not be a threat to society, but they all have to have ankle bracelets under California law.

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

I've always wondered why in universities all you see is advertising for women to be sexually conscious, to report in possible incidents, that consent while drunk does not count as consent and so on. If a female student hooks up with a male student and later regrets, he'll be going to the disciplinary committee and, if lucky enough, get suspended from school.

It is very, very difficult not to think of the issue as some form of gender inequality, as if men are naturally the cause of all sexual offenses.

So 3M are basically saying "if you buy our system and it doesn't work out for you, well hard luck, you have to keep it or we'll sue you". Yeah, that's gonna get people queuing up to by your system. It just makes it painfully obvious that they have a failed product on there hands and they're doing anything they can to try and wrangle a bit of money out of it.

The PR-noob from 3M lost me with his "... time, and time, and time again.", spiel.

The definition everywhere in the States is less than sane in some ways. I know a person who is on a sex-offender registry for life for sleeping with a sixteen year old girl who lied to everyone about her age. This guy's a "sex offender" now and it's impossible for people to differentiate between him and a rapist/pedophile.

Where? I don't know of any state where the age of consent is above 16?

Quote:

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

It is not legal to have sex with a person who doesn't consent, including someone who is unable to consent due to alcohol. Of course a man who has sex with a woman who is passed out is going to claim that he was also drunk...but that doesn't mean it's true or we have to believe it. Apparently the jury didn't.

Quote:

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

This is legal in some parts of the US, too, if the man is 18 or 19 (i.e., if the age difference is 5 years or less).

Quote:

But anyway, an ankle bracelet isn't a perfect solution and one would wonder why they were paroled if they were still seen as a threat to society.

They may or may not be a threat to society, but they all have to have ankle bracelets under California law.

-There's a lot of states where the age of consent is above 16. I live in one of them.

-Nobody said anything about being "passed out." (Please don't read things into my comments that aren't there expecting a response.) Which is obviously illegal and defined as rape. What happens to a male who is drunkenly (CONSCIOUSLY) taken advantage of by a woman? Gets laughed out of the police station if he were to file a report.

It is not legal to have sex with a person who doesn't consent, including someone who is unable to consent due to alcohol. Of course a man who has sex with a woman who is passed out is going to claim that he was also drunk...but that doesn't mean it's true or we have to believe it. Apparently the jury didn't.

I think the problem with this law is the language used to describe it.

Being drunk does not make a person unable to consent. Otherwise it would mean that every time two drunk people have sex they were both rape victims and rapists at the same time.

In set theory you might say "being too drunk to consent" belongs to the set of "being drunk", but being drunk does not imply being too drunk to consent. As Peter said, it is up to a jury to decide, based on whatever evidence is presented to them, whether the level of drunkenness meets the standard of "too drunk to consent".

I do know of situations were in college guys who were too drunk to consent were taken advantage by a girl. Actually multiple guys had it done to them by the same girl, on different occasions. They were pretty pissed off about it afterwards but would never think of reporting it as a rape. It is still a taboo in our society for men to report being raped.

...Can you link to the actual law so that I can read over? Its really disconcerting...

I would if I could read Italian. It's common knowledge though. Especially after the Berlusconi-scandal.

Don't bother discussing it here. You'll just get a bunch of nationalistic trolling like the previous poster who derides US law as "f'd up" while calling legalized pedophilia in a so-called civilized nation simply "weird" because of "smart people."

If someone is considered a high risk sex offender, relying on a cheap questionable alternative to incarceration is blatant stupidity.

It appears cash strapped organisations were all too willing to swallow the sales pitch and went with the lowest bidder.

There's plenty of blame to go around here. A large part of that blame lies with idiots thinking a pervert with a stiff dick will be stopped by an ankle bracelet. The rest lies with manufacturers trying to profiteer on an unsuitable product while perpetuating the myth that it works.

Private prisons FTW!

Granted, a case study in Oklahoma has a guy that was out fishing in the middle of a lake, got off of his boat, took a leak on a tree, had a cop watching him pee through binoculars, and is branded a sex offender...

...Can you link to the actual law so that I can read over? Its really disconcerting...

I would if I could read Italian. It's common knowledge though. Especially after the Berlusconi-scandal.

Don't bother discussing it here. You'll just get a bunch of nationalistic trolling like the previous poster who derides US law as "f'd up" while calling legalized pedophilia in a so-called civilized nation simply "weird" because of "smart people."

I think 14 as the age of the consent is fairly common in the Western World. Most of our (the Western World's) laws are very old and were written hundreds of years ago.

In Victorian times (fairly recent history) women were married around the age of 14. 13 year old rphans were even sent to the New World to be married to hunters and trappers so that colonies would be established with staying power - colonization doesn't work very well with male-only colonies. It is only recently in human history that our values have come to reflect the difference between humans' mental maturity and sexual maturity.

Animals are considered sexually mature when they are capable of reproduction, but since we have started to consider women to be people as opposed to property in the last 100 years or so it's become clear that sexual maturity does not make an adult, and mental maturity comes much later than sexual maturity.

Wikipedia wrote:

In the mid-17th century, there was a severe imbalance between single men and women in New France. . .

...The growth of population in the English colonies awakened concern among some officials. To increase population and the number of families, the Intendant of New France, Jean Talon, proposed that the king sponsor passage of at least 500 women. The king agreed, and eventually nearly twice the number were recruited. They were predominately between the ages of 12 and 25, and many had to supply a letter of reference from their parish priest before they would be chosen for emigration to New France.

I think 14 as the age of the consent is fairly common in the Western World. Most of our (the Western World's) laws are very old and were written hundreds of years ago...

Some laws written hundreds of years ago are in desperate need of revision. There's no excuse for a grown man, in modern Western-society, to have sexual relations with a fourteen year old girl.

Times were indeed different but the role of a women in modern society is vastly different now. A fourteen year old girl is barely educated enough and still in her parents care and raising, whereas hundreds of years ago they were considered baby-machines, weren't allowed an education, etc.

I don't know why this discussion is even necessary TBH. Who would have thought we needed apologists to defend common decency and against pedophilia?

I think 14 as the age of the consent is fairly common in the Western World. Most of our (the Western World's) laws are very old and were written hundreds of years ago...

Some laws written hundreds of years ago are in desperate need on revision. There's no excuse for a grown man, in modern Western-society, to have sexual relations with a fourteen year old girl.

Times were indeed different but the role of a women in modern society is vastly different now. A fourteen year old girl is barely educated enough and still in her parents care and raising, whereas hundreds of years ago they were considered baby-machines, weren't allowed an education, etc.

I don't know why this discussion is even necessary TBH. Who would have thought we needed apologists to defend common decency and against pedophilia?

I agree, but I think it is important to understand where are laws come from and why they are the way they are. Where I live, women were only declared to be people under the law less than 100 years ago, and gained the ability to vote. Ony thirty years ago it was legal for a husband to rape his wife because the wording of the law said "a rape occurs when a man other than the woman's husband...", etc...

When we hear of a country that has laws related to sexuality that are abhorrent to us I think it's important to remember that not very long ago we probably had similar laws, and instead of demonizing them based on their nationality or ethnicity we can help them liberalize their laws the way we have liberalized our laws so that women have more justice.

In set theory you might say "being too drunk to consent" belongs to the set of "being drunk", but being drunk does not imply being too drunk to consent. As Peter said, it is up to a jury to decide, based on whatever evidence is presented to them, whether the level of drunkenness meets the standard of "too drunk to consent".

(Sigh...) IMHO, which is probably not a popular one, you cannot be too drunk to consent. You consented to drinking that much; the consequences of which have been known since the dawn of civilization. If I were to voluntarily incapacitate myself, I'd take care to do it in a safe place. An environment which includes other drunken people is not such.

Any other option (how drunk is "too drunk"?) has an unworkable number of indeterminate variables.

...Can you link to the actual law so that I can read over? Its really disconcerting...

I would if I could read Italian. It's common knowledge though. Especially after the Berlusconi-scandal.

Don't bother discussing it here. You'll just get a bunch of nationalistic trolling like the previous poster who derides US law as "f'd up" while calling legalized pedophilia in a so-called civilized nation simply "weird" because of "smart people."

I think 14 as the age of the consent is fairly common in the Western World. Most of our (the Western World's) laws are very old and were written hundreds of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe lists the following: Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, and Serbia. Spain is 13. Although many of them have additional conditions under which it could still be illegal (e.g. deception, position of influence over, etc) so I don't know how this works out in actual practice. Still, 15 countries out of 49, less than one third. So it's not the norm but it's also not particularly unusual, apparently.

The definition everywhere in the States is less than sane in some ways. I know a person who is on a sex-offender registry for life for sleeping with a sixteen year old girl who lied to everyone about her age. This guy's a "sex offender" now and it's impossible for people to differentiate between him and a rapist/pedophile.

Where? I don't know of any state where the age of consent is above 16?

Quick rip from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[46]

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

It is not legal to have sex with a person who doesn't consent, including someone who is unable to consent due to alcohol. Of course a man who has sex with a woman who is passed out is going to claim that he was also drunk...but that doesn't mean it's true or we have to believe it. Apparently the jury didn't.[quote]Except that right now, a claim is all that's required. She says "I would have said no", and all the witnesses in the world won't help the guy. I've seen it twice, and it fucking infuriates me.

Back in 2006, California voters approved a ballot measure to put GPS tracking “anklets” on sex offenders that would monitor them for life

For life? Are California voters crazy or does California actually have a sane legal definition of "sex offender". One that does not criminalize socially-accepted behavior or turn first-time offenders into perpetual criminals.

No, California has no sane definition of sex offender. You read about guys peeing in an alley and ending up with pink sheets. But I think the proposition in question was for repeat offenders. It would of helped to have the number.

The deal with propositions in Ca. Is you can vrtually pay to have them put on the ballot. There have only been a handful of propositions that were put on the ballot by volunteer effort. (The animal rights activists did one for giving chickens bigger cages. The California Nurses Association union members got a health care proposition on the ballot.) You can pay for signature gathering. Technically the gatherer has to be from California, but the courts have nulified that rule.

Once you get your proposition on the ballot, you mass market with deceptive ads. You can lie in these ads. It is political speech. Nobody reads the full text of the props. Now you take a proposition against something as unpopular as sex offenders or human traffickers, it will surely pass even if poorly worded or thought out.

There was a proposition passed that limited where a sex offender could live. It used a radius limit from schools and parks. Sounds good, but totally unenforceable and of dubious legality. Prop 35, the human trafficking initiative passed (life sentances!), but I believe the courts blocked it.

For a while there were so-called "anti-lawyer" initiatives in Ca. These limited the percentage a lawyer could get on contingency. Of course, that didn't limit the corporate lawyers who get paid by the hour. The prop failed and immediately they started gathering signatures for a similar proposition. I confronted the schmuck gathering signatures at a local grocery store and did an improptu protest. Every time someone came to the table, I informed them that the had to right to ask the guy if he was getting paid to get signatures. They would ask, he had to say yes, then the people wouldn't sign. He threated to call the cops on me for disturbing his peace. I said go ahead, but you better have a California drivers license to be gathering signatures and be able to pass a warrants check. (Police routinely do a FI (field identification) of all parties in an event). He packed up his table, put it in his car, gave me the finger and shouted "fuck you asshole shit head". Ah, made my day!

The definition everywhere in the States is less than sane in some ways. I know a person who is on a sex-offender registry for life for sleeping with a sixteen year old girl who lied to everyone about her age. This guy's a "sex offender" now and it's impossible for people to differentiate between him and a rapist/pedophile.

Where? I don't know of any state where the age of consent is above 16?

Quick rip from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[46]

...and then there's the man and woman who, equally drunk, sleep with each other and in the morning the only one legally "responsible" is the man. Saw that numerous times. Female, ashamed of herself, assumes no responsibility and successfully charges her intoxicated partner with rape.

It is not legal to have sex with a person who doesn't consent, including someone who is unable to consent due to alcohol. Of course a man who has sex with a woman who is passed out is going to claim that he was also drunk...but that doesn't mean it's true or we have to believe it. Apparently the jury didn't.

Quote:

Except that right now, a claim is all that's required. She says "I would have said no", and all the witnesses in the world won't help the guy. I've seen it twice, and it fucking infuriates me.

That means that the witness were not found to be credible (rightly or wrongly) by the jury or judge. A claim is not all that is required. A claim initiates an investigation and a trial.

During a trial the most convincing side wins. Sure mistakes happen, juries and judges are deceived sometimes, but that is the best way we know how to enact justice.

But then again there's the other side of this coin. Certain "first-world" European nations who allow an adult to have "consensual" intercourse with a fourteen year old---as long as you don't "pay" her.

But anyway, an ankle bracelet isn't a perfect solution and one would wonder why they were paroled if they were still seen as a threat to society.

So the age of consent is 14, so what?

I find USA very problematic in that a 15 year can be jailed for a crime, but is not considered old enough to understand the consequences of sex. WTF. is up with that?

---

Maybe the purpose of the bracelet is to ensure that the sex offender never gets near a school or some such. Not without someone knowing at least.

I think 14 as the age of the consent is fairly common in the Western World. Most of our (the Western World's) laws are very old and were written hundreds of years ago.

In Victorian times (fairly recent history) women were married around the age of 14. 13 year old rphans were even sent to the New World to be married to hunters and trappers so that colonies would be established with staying power - colonization doesn't work very well with male-only colonies. It is only recently in human history that our values have come to reflect the difference between humans' mental maturity and sexual m aturity.

In keeping with your historical context of laws, I think the shorter lifespan of humans at the time those laws were written also played a role. People died younger, so they started working at a younger age and started families at a younger age. In every socially meaningful way, people were essentially adults at that earlier age.

I find USA very problematic in that a 15 year can be jailed for a crime, but is not considered old enough to understand the consequences of sex. WTF. is up with that?

...

So it's despicable for a grown man to fuck a fourteen year old...that's what. That's also within the scope and topic of this article. Unlike the rest of your reply. (Which was mostly bullshit as I am a former corrections officer and never heard of a fifteen year old that was jailed in an adult prison. Ever.)

You DID see my original post wherein I criticized laws of many nations related to sex offenses, right? Or are you just picking little pieces out to start some tired nationalistic argument?

Earlier this month, a New York man took his GPS tracking device apart, removed it, and reassembled it in 60 seconds. He later allegedly raped a 10-year-old girl and stabbed a woman in a small town in the suburbs of Syracuse, New York.

that guy's a total sociopath. I feel sick to my stomach for that girl. ugh.

meanwhile, you all seem to be interested in debating whether adults should be having sex with children. get a grip. this is 2013, sex isn't just about physical maturity--a grown man doesn't seek out a young girl because he believes she will produce healthy offspring. emotional maturity is a crucial component of sexual relationships and age of consent laws are aimed at protecting a child's future.